It is
not only confusing, but sometimes harmful to say 'leader' when there is
another word that is more precise. Most people consider leadership to
be a good thing and a quality to be sought, but think about it. What do
you do when you follow a leader? You allow that leader to do your thinking.
When someone claims leadership, it is a claim to think for others. If
you consent to that leadership you agree to allow that leader to think
for you. A leader cannot be a leader until he has followers who allow
him to think for them. One cannot follow a leader, and at the same time
do his own thinking.

Much
of the time leaders know where they are going, although their followers
may not. However, there is such a thing as ignorant leadership. At age
three our grandson Michael, demonstrated this on a soccer field. Would
you believe three-year-olds can enroll in soccer training? No competitive
scoring is involved, but there are teams and there is lots of running
and ball kicking. They are also taught the traditions of the game, such
as having the teams line up after the game to shake hands with the other
team's players. Michael was at the head of his team's lineup and the coach
extended his hand to show Michael to extend his hand for a handshake,
but Michael misinterpreted the coach's gesture. He extended his right
arm, then his left arm and started marching. His team followed, marching
happily around the field like little toy soldiers. Then the other team
joined the parade. Seeing Michael, the other little boys assumed marching
was the thing to do. Who can deny that Michael was a leader? Who can deny
that the other boys let Michael do their thinking?

Is the
President of our country a leader? Many people think of him as their leader.
Perhaps he thinks of himself as a leader, but he ought not. The Constitution
states that he is the country's chief executive, commander of the armed
forces, and a defender of the Constitution. He is not elected to be my
leader or your leader, or to think for us. If you call the President your
leader, it tends to give you and him the wrong idea about his duties.
The President is not elected to lead the people. He has specific assigned
executive duties. To do them well is to be a good President.

Our
Constitutional government does not require leaders. Every elected official
has specific assigned duties and responsibilities. Leading the people
and getting them to surrender their intelligence is not among them. However,
since the federal government has involved itself in education, more and
more people have been willing to stop thinking and start marching after
leaders and misleaders..

Last
February Margaret Spellings, President Bush's new Secretary of Education,
spoke at the National Governors Association's National Education Summit
on High Schools. In that speech she said:

"When
our Founders wrote the U. S. Constitution, they didn't write down a laundry
list of what the states could or could not do. Instead, they listed the
few tasks for which the federal government was responsible, then 'reserved'
the rest 'to the States. . . or to the people'--including public education.
. . It was unprecedented. It was genius. and as a former governor, it's
the spirit by which President Bush governs today."

If the
Secretary of Education was being truthful and sincere, the rest of her
speech would have continued something like this:

"It
is because President Bush and I understand the Constitution and its genius
that the President as asked me to inform you that he will now begin the
process of returning all decisions, responsibility and financing regarding
education to the states and the citizens of the respective states.

"We
believe past federal involvement in education has added substantially
to its cost and subtracted from its value--in addition to being an offense
against our Constitution and our nation's founders. Therefore, we have
drawn up a plan for federal disengagement which will decrease both the
budget and federal regulation of education as rapidly as this can be accomplished.
I am here today to ask your cooperation and to challenge you to begin
the process of accepting the transference of authority and also to challenge
you to work within your states to make this transition as smooth as possible.
The President and I have no doubt that this disengagement will not only
improve the quality of education, but will save taxpayers billions of
dollars in what has frequently been unproductive, and sometimes harmful
spending."

But
the Secretary of Education did not say that! Instead she said:

". .
. when Governor Bush ran for President, he had to look at education from
a national perspective. He understood that the federal government had
a role to play. . . So the President's first legislative priority was
the No Child Left Behind Act. The genius of the law was that it held states
accountable for measuring and improving student performance - but it did
not dictate how. . .

"Eighteen
months after the law was signed, all 50 states had unique accountability
plans in place. Not one Governor chose to leave his or her federal Title
I money behind. Not one sent an army of lobbyists to Washington to find
a way out of it. Not one complained that it was unconstitutional."

I might
add: Not one was able to do his own thinking. The Secretary of Education
admitted that even after federal spending of $130 billion on Elementary
and Secondary Education since 1965, reading and math scores remained stagnant
and America's high schools are failing to prepare many students for work
and higher education. The admission was then tied to a promotion for the
President's proposed High School Initiative to make the states more accountable
to the federal government for future educational achievement.

The
proposed education budget for 2006 is $56 billion. Write it down. That's
56 followed by nine zeros--more than a billion for every state in the
union. Imagine what could be done if that amount were left in the pockets
of the people and the funds of the states.

But
things are upside down. Instead of the federal government being accountable
to the people and the states, the people and the states are forced by
financial intimidation to be subject and accountable to the federal government.
It is no longer the government referred to by Daniel Webster in 1830 when
he spoke of 'the people's government made for the people, made by the
people, and answerable to the people.' It has become a top down leadership
system. Everyone within the system is on a leadership ladder, which means
that each must have a leader to follow, but also followers under his direction.

Being
called a leader is an ego booster. It keeps even those on the lower rungs
of the leadership ladder content with their situation. Many 'leaders'
do not know, however, that the leadership ladder system is in the process
of being extended. It is being made to reach around the world. The federal
government and the non governmental organizations that influence decisions
within the federal government have placed themselves under a worldwide
leadership system which is intended eventually to replace sovereignty
in all nations.

In education
this already means a layer of international leaders dictating the curriculum
in your schools in addition to the national leaders who already are in
place. The international system now uses the term 'sustainable development.'
The years 2005 through 2014 are being promoted as the decade of education
for the United Nations' sustainable development. Colleges and universities
are close to the top of this international leadership ladder Among other
things, they are being used to train teachers as leaders in sustainable
development so they can train students to accept and promote the economic,
social, religious, and environmental changes and controls that sustainable
development entails.

Not
until you are aware of the leadership ladder with its connection to United
Nations sustainable development and the New World Order can you really
appreciate what might be meant by the phrase 'No Child Left Behind.' If
it means academic achievement and nothing more, it is a vain promise and
a promotional gimmick because some children are, and always will be smarter
and more talented than others. We are not physically or intellectually
equal. There will always be some who are left behind.

But
if you think of 'No Child Left Behind' in relation to the effort to get
everyone to hop onto the leadership ladder and surrender to the United
Nations' sustainable development, left behind does not refer to intellectual
achievement. It means that a student is not yet committed to sustainable
development. He still believes in national sovereignty, religious freedom,
and the U. S. Constitution. If the New World order is to maintain control,
no child can be left in this free condition.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

In the
poem, "The Pied Piper of Hamlin" one little lame boy was left behind when
all the other children followed the Pied Piper. The leaders of the New
World Order do not want that to happen to their plans. Education for United
Nations' sustainable development from 2005 to 2014 intends that no child
be left behind with traditional loyalties or Christian beliefs. All should
be made ready to march into the New World Order and take their place on
the various rungs of the leadership ladder.

Erica Carle is an independent researcher and
writer. She has a B.S. degree from the University of Wisconsin. She has
been involved in radio and television writing and production, and has
also taught math and composition at the private school her children attended
in Brookfield, Wisconsin. For ten years she wrote a weekly column, "Truth
In Education" for WISCONSIN REPORT, and served as Education Editor for
that publication.

Colleges
and universities are close to the top of this international leadership
ladder Among other things, they are being used to train teachers as leaders
in sustainable development so they can train students to accept and promote
the economic, social, religious, and environmental changes and controls
that sustainable development entails.